In the weeks after the Democratic U.S. House of Representatives passed an election reform bill known as HR 1 or the For the People Act of 2021, posts on social media claimed that the legislation controls city elections , provinces and states would shift. to Washington, DC, “” make the ballot box for mass enrollment permanent, “” ban voter ID, “” allow registration and vote on the same day (allow time to vet potential voters, “” harvest the ballot paper, and “funnels all appeals in one court – the traditionally democratically controlled DC Circuit Court.” This list of claims is partially false.
Examples of postings that make this claim can be found here, here and here.
HR 1, which was passed in the House by a mostly biased vote of 220 to 210 on March 3, will update the voting procedures and require states to hand over the task of handing over the districts of Congress to independent commissions (here).
The bill, the full text of which is available here, has a long chance in the Senate, where all 48 Democrats and the two independents who agree with them must be joined by ten Republican senators to overcome a filibuster.
Democrats say legislation is needed to lower barriers and make the U.S. political system more democratic and responsive to voters. But Republicans say it will take away powers from the states and not do enough to combat fraud. The influential right-thinking Heritage Foundation think tank has urged lawmakers to vote against it.
MOVES HR 1 SALE OF ELECTIONS FROM STATES TO DC?
The posts claim that HR 1 ‘would shift control of elections from cities, provinces and states to Washington, DC’. This assertion is somewhat open to interpretation. The bill will not shift control of all elections from cities, provinces and states to the federal government, as it only addresses federal elections. But experts agree that it will extend the federal reach to the way states conduct elections.
In a 24-year-old on March 24 in Newsweek, C. Boyden Gray, former White House adviser to President George HW Bush, described HR 1 as a constitutional disaster in the making, writing that ‘Congress is only a secondary, simultaneous power over congressional elections, an even smaller role in presidential elections and not at all a specific role in state elections (here).
According to Gray, HR 1 undermines this structure “and would be ” a Washington takeover of the election on a collision course with the text, structure and principles of the Constitution – which puts the states in the driver’s seat. ‘
But Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in electoral and constitutional law (here), told Reuters in an email that Gray’s argument “misrepresents how the constitutional text and the doctrine in question address” the power of Congress to regulate elections. ‘
Stephanopoulos said that under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has essentially absolute authority over congressional elections. Although states can regulate congressional elections, Congress can ignore their electoral laws.
“As far as presidential elections are concerned, the Supreme Court cases, which go back almost a century, said that Congress has the same power over presidential elections that it enjoys over congressional elections,” Stephanopoulos said.
‘The one thing Congress may not be able to do is tell a state how to allocate its presidential voters – but HR 1 does not intend to do so’, as the bill ‘restricts itself to federal elections’.
Jessica Bulman-Pozen, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School, told Reuters in an e-mail that over time, Congress’ was given the power to pass constitutional amendments on voting in federal and state elections. enforce – including the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection), 15th Amendment (Racial Discrimination), 19th Amendment (Gender Discrimination) and 26th Amendment (Age Discrimination). It has also passed many laws over the years over federal elections, such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
“It imposes different requirements on states, but does not amount to a ‘takeover’ of the election by the federal government. Neither does HR1, ”Bulman-Pozen said, adding that it” sets standards that states must meet while holding elections. “
WOULD HR MAKE 1 ENTRY BALLOTS UNIVERSAL?
It is true that the option to vote by mail in every state would become universal if HR 1 became law (here).
Section 1621 of the Bill reads as follows: “If an individual in a state is eligible to vote during a federal election, the state may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the suitability of the individual to cast the vote. such election by absent ballot by post ”(here).
As explained here by Reuters, the postal vote is not new in the United States – almost 1 in 4 voters cast 2016 presidential votes that way. Routine methods and the decentralized nature of U.S. elections make it very difficult to interfere with postal ballots, experts say.
Would HR 1 LAWS ON IDE LAWS ON STATE BAN?
In terms of Article 3, “Findings of General Constitutional Authority”, HR 1 in subsection C) states that Congress “finds that states and communities have denied access to the right to vote through restrictions on the right to vote, including excessive onerous requirement for voter identification” (here) .
As a result, Article 303A allows the use of affidavits in writing instead of the requirement for state identification. In other words, as stated here by the Economist, “states with voter ID laws will have to have people vote without identification, provided they sign an affidavit.”
HR 1 does not prohibit the laws of state voters, but it does stipulate that those who do not meet the ID requirements have the option to sign affidavits during federal (not state or local) elections.
As indicated in a list presented here by the National Conference of State Legislators, 35 out of 50 states have different forms of voter identification laws.
This section of the law is at the heart of a long-running dispute between Republicans and Democrats. Republican lawmakers in many states have passed voter ID laws, arguing that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud. But critics, including Democrats and advocates for suffrage, call the laws an effective way to try to suppress African-American votes, both of which are more likely to vote Democratic and do not have the necessary identity cards (here, here, here) .
WILL HR ALLOW 1 SELF-DAY REGISTRATION FOR EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY?
As mentioned in the posts, HR 1 will give voters in all states access to registration on the same day at the early polling stations and the areas on election day (here). But “same day” may not limit officials’ ability not to verify voters. Nearly half of the states currently allow same-day registration, and some use state-wide voter systems that provide real-time checks and E-poll books. Others allow the ballot to be cast, but will not count until the voter has been verified.
Article 304 (a) states: “Each State may allow any eligible individual to vote in a federal election on the day of a federal election and on any day on which, including early voting ,— (A) register to vote in such election. . at the polling station by means of a form complying with the requirements in terms of section 9 (b) of the National Registration of Voters Act of 1993 … and (B) to cast a vote in such election. ‘
Those who oppose same-day voter registration argue arguments like those in social media reports, arguing that the practice makes it possible to give zero time to obtain potential voters for qualification (here).
(here).
According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior lawyer at the Heritage Foundation, under HR 1 ‘, on election day I was able to walk to any polling station, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming that I really am John Smith a mood, and walk out ‘(here).
However, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), security measures in the 20 U.S. states that allow registration on the same day include proof of identity and right of abode, interpretation of provisional votes, statewide voter systems, oaths and affidavits, criminal penalties for fraudulent voting, personal registration, non-forwardable mail items, location restriction and verification of agencies and interstates (here).
Proponents of same-day voter registration, such as the Brennan Center for Justice (here), say it helps ensure voters can vote and does not increase the chances of committing voter fraud (here).
SOU HR 1 “ENSHRINE BALLOT HARVEST”?
HR 1 will expand the collection of the ballot, which is already legal in more than half of the states. It does not allow votes to be tampered with, which is accompanied by the expression “ballot papers”. If passed, the legislation could still be challenged in court and would not form part of the US Constitution, meaning that none of its provisions would be ‘entrenched’.
Twenty-six states allow voters to nominate someone to return their ballot paper to them, ten allow family members to do so, while the rest require voters to return their own ballot papers or remain silent about it (here; ‘ a table of the NCSL showing who can collect and the absentee ballots if the voter in each state is available here).
HR 1 would allow a voter in each state to designate a third party to return ‘a ballot paper with votes and sealed absences to the post office, a discount venue, a building or an election office’, as long as the third party party person or group “receives no form of compensation” for downloading ballot papers (see Art. 304 (2) (A) here).
Activist groups from all streaks have long gathered the ballot box to increase voter turnout or help those who are unable to get to the polls to cast their ballots. (here).
Lately, some conservatives have expressed concern about the possibility of fraud or tampering with the collection of ballot papers, calling them ‘harvests’. Opponents of the polls say third parties are unable to return ballots where they do not agree with the vote, or to vote for the imaginary voters.
As outlined here by the Washington Post, legal collection “requires that the ballot be completed and sealed before it is collected,” which makes it “difficult for someone who collects ballots to change the actual vote.”
WILL PROFESSIONS BE HELD IN THE DC CIRCUIT COURT? IS THIS DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED?
It is true that section 4, (a) (1) of the Bill states that appeals in the U.S. District Court must be filed for the District of Columbia, and that appeals may be brought from the decision of the District Court to the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. Circuit (here).
But the reports’ claim that the DC Circuit is “democratically controlled” is misleading. The judges of the court eventually tossed between a Republican and Democratic designated majority (here, here). The court currently consists of a chief justice and three judges appointed by former president Barack Obama (a Democrat), one judge appointed by former president George HW Bush (a Republican), two judges appointed by former president Bill Clinton (a Democrat). democrat) was appointed. three judges appointed by former President Donald Trump (a Republican) (here).
Current U.S. Supreme Court justices in the United States who once sat on the DC Circuit were co-judges Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, both considered staunch conservatives (here, here), as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, who is currently a important voice is considered. (here).
VERDICT
Missing context. This viral description of HR 1, the For the People Act, contains misleading allegations about the bill.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.